• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Blackwater Said to Pursue Bribes to Iraq After 17 Died

K

kansaswhig

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
1,164
Reaction score
509
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
More trouble for Blackwater...

Blackwater Said to Pursue Bribes to Iraq After 17 Died
By MARK MAZZETTI and JAMES RISEN
November 10, 2009
New York Times

WASHINGTON — Top executives at Blackwater Worldwide authorized secret payments of about $1 million to Iraqi officials that were intended to silence their criticism and buy their support after a September 2007 episode in which Blackwater security guards fatally shot 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad, according to former company officials.

Blackwater approved the cash payments in December 2007, the officials said, as protests over the deadly shootings in Nisour Square stoked long-simmering anger inside Iraq about reckless practices by the security company’s employees. American and Iraqi investigators had already concluded that the shootings were unjustified, top Iraqi officials were calling for Blackwater’s ouster from the country, and company officials feared that Blackwater might be refused an operating license it would need to retain its contracts with the State Department and private clients, worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Click to expand...

Full Story
 
Not to support Blackwater, but isn't that what we call political donating?
 
For purely tactical and strategic reasons, I have a fundamental opposition to Blackwater and companies like them in war zones with little or no accountability.

I believe there is a place for them, but not NEARLY in the capacity to which we allow(ed).

1. They are not accountable to anyone for their actions.
2. Iraqis see them as part of the the occupation and Coalition and not separate from the uniformed services, which hurts the military when they misbehave.
3. During the war, U.S. military organizations owned "battlespace" in which they were accountable for all actions inside those geographically designated areas. Private security contractors conducted missions and operated in that battlespace without coordination or communication with the "land owning" U.S., British and Iraqi forces. This led to severe command and control problems, not to mention security forces having to "clean up" the messes of private security contractors that they weren't responsible for.
4. Each military unit that owns battlespace has a meticulously crafted "campaign plan" that outlines the very specific measures needed to be taken by the Coalition military and civilian enablers. This include lethal and non-lethal operations, information operations, media coverage, stability operations and governance assistance. Any variations from this campaign plan could result in a mission failure. The sole existence of rogue security firms operating in the area runs the risk of compromising the carefully crafted objectives of the campaign plan and run great risk for the military units responsible.

Escort missions are one thing. Kinetic operations are another. Blackwater and those of their stripe blurred the lines often and caused a great deal of stress for military units trying to conduct COIN and Stability Operations.
 
kansaswhig said:
For purely tactical and strategic reasons, I have a fundamental opposition to Blackwater and companies like them in war zones with little or no accountability.

I believe there is a place for them, but not NEARLY in the capacity to which we allow(ed).

1. They are not accountable to anyone for their actions.
2. Iraqis see them as part of the the occupation and Coalition and not separate from the uniformed services, which hurts the military when they misbehave.
3. During the war, U.S. military organizations owned "battlespace" in which they were accountable for all actions inside those geographically designated areas. Private security contractors conducted missions and operated in that battlespace without coordination or communication with the "land owning" U.S., British and Iraqi forces. This led to severe command and control problems, not to mention security forces having to "clean up" the messes of private security contractors that they weren't responsible for.
4. Each military unit that owns battlespace has a meticulously crafted "campaign plan" that outlines the very specific measures needed to be taken by the Coalition military and civilian enablers. This include lethal and non-lethal operations, information operations, media coverage, stability operations and governance assistance. Any variations from this campaign plan could result in a mission failure. The sole existence of rogue security firms operating in the area runs the risk of compromising the carefully crafted objectives of the campaign plan and run great risk for the military units responsible.

Escort missions are one thing. Kinetic operations are another. Blackwater and those of their stripe blurred the lines often and caused a great deal of stress for military units trying to conduct COIN and Stability Operations.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that there is any place within our military operations for Blackwater, or any org like them.

IMO, I think the US needs to create a foreign legion, a copy of the French Foreign Legion. The Blackwater types can join that unit and do their thing.
 
apdst said:
I don't believe that there is any place within our military operations for Blackwater, or any org like them.

IMO, I think the US needs to create a foreign legion, a copy of the French Foreign Legion. The Blackwater types can join that unit and do their thing.
Click to expand...

Private Security Contractors do missions that would take up manpower from the military; like diplomatic escort, local political escort, etc. Our guys still pick up some of the slack on this. But when they start targeting and hunting, they give us a real headache.

The accountability thing is something I can't get over.

FFL? American Foriegn Legion...THAT would be pretty cool.
 
apdst said:
I don't believe that there is any place within our military operations for Blackwater, or any org like them.

IMO, I think the US needs to create a foreign legion, a copy of the French Foreign Legion. The Blackwater types can join that unit and do their thing.
Click to expand...
What the hell does Blackwater do that the military can't?
 
kansaswhig said:
Private Security Contractors do missions that would take up manpower from the military; like diplomatic escort, local political escort, etc. Our guys still pick up some of the slack on this. But when they start targeting and hunting, they give us a real headache.

The accountability thing is something I can't get over.

FFL? American Foriegn Legion...THAT would be pretty cool.
Click to expand...

I understand their role as private security, but I was referring to actual operations.

An American Foreign legion would be cool as hell. Too bad you and I couldn't join.:rofl



American said:
What the hell does Blackwater do that the military can't?
Click to expand...

Nothing.
 
Redress said:
Not to support Blackwater, but isn't that what we call political donating?
Click to expand...

Depends on whether the US Atty in your district likes you or not. If they don't, it's called a violation of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act.

Since the article doesn't include many details, I can't say where I think this one would come down. However, this is by no means a rare occurrence in the corporate world, especially where corporations deal with less than savory regimes.
 
RightinNYC said:
Depends on whether the US Atty in your district likes you or not. If they don't, it's called a violation of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act.

Since the article doesn't include many details, I can't say where I think this one would come down. However, this is by no means a rare occurrence in the corporate world, especially where corporations deal with less than savory regimes.
Click to expand...

Can the US DA regulate what monies are given to foreign governments?
 
apdst said:
I understand their role as private security, but I was referring to actual operations.

An American Foreign legion would be cool as hell. Too bad you and I couldn't join.:rofl





Nothing.
Click to expand...
Then the military should start doing it.
 
apdst said:
I don't believe that there is any place within our military operations for Blackwater, or any org like them.

IMO, I think the US needs to create a foreign legion, a copy of the French Foreign Legion. The Blackwater types can join that unit and do their thing.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Troops should be under the chain of command, and should be responsible for their actions, with the UCMJ to enforce military law. Allowing private companies like Xe to run amok, and ignore the law, gives America a black eye. You just can't have a bunch of Dirty Harry's running around and toasting civilians, which is pretty much what Blackwater was doing.
 
This world needs mercenaries. If only they were cheaper and maybe had an ethical code...
 
American said:
Then the military should start doing it.
Click to expand...

American,
I do not oppose the existence of private security contractors. However, their missions need to be clearly defined and they need to be subjected to the Laws of Land Warfare, the Geneva Convention and Theater-specific Rules of Engagement, which they are not. I do believe there is a place for them; primarily because they take the burden of the military for some menial tasks that we would rather not do, nor have to manpower to do. If a squad of Blackwater guys can escort an Iraqi politician around, then that alleviates a Platoon of American GIs to do the same task. However, these Blackwater guys can't go shooting up town. They should have to fall under a U.S. command element that tracks their movement; not to mention have constant communications with said HQ. I am also not opposed to security contractors training the Iraqi military and police, as long as the training is planned and supervised by U.S. and Iraqi military personnel.

Security contractors have a place on the battlefield; but as I stated before, not in the capacity that we've allowed.
 
kansaswhig said:
American,
I do not oppose the existence of private security contractors. However, their missions need to be clearly defined and they need to be subjected to the Laws of Land Warfare, the Geneva Convention and Theater-specific Rules of Engagement, which they are not. I do believe there is a place for them; primarily because they take the burden of the military for some menial tasks that we would rather not do, nor have to manpower to do. If a squad of Blackwater guys can escort an Iraqi politician around, then that alleviates a Platoon of American GIs to do the same task. However, these Blackwater guys can't go shooting up town. They should have to fall under a U.S. command element that tracks their movement; not to mention have constant communications with said HQ. I am also not opposed to security contractors training the Iraqi military and police, as long as the training is planned and supervised by U.S. and Iraqi military personnel.

Security contractors have a place on the battlefield; but as I stated before, not in the capacity that we've allowed.
Click to expand...

Well at least we're not doing it like the Romans...Right? :S
 
kansaswhig said:
American,
I do not oppose the existence of private security contractors. However, their missions need to be clearly defined and they need to be subjected to the Laws of Land Warfare, the Geneva Convention and Theater-specific Rules of Engagement, which they are not. I do believe there is a place for them; primarily because they take the burden of the military for some menial tasks that we would rather not do, nor have to manpower to do. If a squad of Blackwater guys can escort an Iraqi politician around, then that alleviates a Platoon of American GIs to do the same task. However, these Blackwater guys can't go shooting up town. They should have to fall under a U.S. command element that tracks their movement; not to mention have constant communications with said HQ. I am also not opposed to security contractors training the Iraqi military and police, as long as the training is planned and supervised by U.S. and Iraqi military personnel.

Security contractors have a place on the battlefield; but as I stated before, not in the capacity that we've allowed.
Click to expand...
I don't see the point in having them. We have plenty of military; I have issues with all this contracting out anyway. The govt is slowly coming to the conclusion that all this contracting out was a big mistake.
 
American said:
We have plenty of military
Click to expand...

Actually, we don't. If we picked up all of Blackwater's missions too, it would be ugly.


I have issues with all this contracting out anyway. The govt is slowly coming to the conclusion that all this contracting out was a big mistake.
Click to expand...

I don't have an issue with contractors as long as they are not no-bid contracts and follow the military's rules and regulations in the warzone.
 
Bush gave the security contract to Blackwater because Eric Prince was a "Christian", and Bush trusted him. No vetting, no investigation, just a gut decision, and now we are left with this. Just one more legacy of the worst president America will ever have.
 
WillRockwell said:
Bush gave the security contract to Blackwater because Eric Prince was a "Christian", and Bush trusted him.
Click to expand...

Not sure that is true, nor that Bush knows Prince personally. Maybe, I don't know.

Blackwater is by no means the only private security firm in Iraq and AFG. There are many...they have just done enough shady stuff to become high profile and now everyone associates all private security firms with Blackwater. It started when the Blackwater guys were killed and their bodies burned in Fallujah. I think BW has been serving retrobution ever since, which of course causes great problems for military units in Iraq that have to answer for their shenanigans.
 
apdst said:
IMO, I think the US needs to create a foreign legion, a copy of the French Foreign Legion. The Blackwater types can join that unit and do their thing.
Click to expand...

What's the FFL do that makes them special? I gather that they would allow non-French nationals to serve france and gain citizenship. The US services already does this, however. So what would be the missions of the AFL?

The reason I am so curious is that I had read The Pentagon's New Map (The Pentagon's New Map - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) several years ago and in it Thomas Barnett splits military force into two groups, one for kinetic ops, so called "Leviathan" force, and the other for reconstruction and nation building, the so called "SysAdmin" force. It sounds like the AFL is kinda like this SysAdmin force.
 
WillRockwell said:
Bush gave the security contract to Blackwater because Eric Prince was a "Christian", and Bush trusted him. No vetting, no investigation, just a gut decision, and now we are left with this. Just one more legacy of the worst president America will ever have.
Click to expand...




What orifice did you pull that out of? :lol:


You do realize that Clinton gave Blackwater its first contract in 1997 right? :lamo


It's funny too... Xe or Blackwater is still employed by the DoD.... yet no one has said nary a word about it to Obama.... hypocrites. :lol:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
What orifice did you pull that out of? :lol:


You do realize that Clinton gave Blackwater its first contract in 1997 right? :lamo


It's funny too... Xe or Blackwater is still employed by the DoD.... yet no one has said nary a word about it to Obama.... hypocrites. :lol:
Click to expand...

epicdude86-albums-motivationals-picture1141-yep.jpg
 
EpicDude86 said:
epicdude86-albums-motivationals-picture1141-yep.jpg
Click to expand...

The reason he can't hear us is because he has been firing his gun too close to his ears. Now he's deaf.

Anyways, it is a horrible idea to trust mercenaries. They are only in it for the money. There is no honor, loyalty, or sense of duty. They are just paid murderers.

The fact that Obama has not ended the Blackwater contracts simply proves that he's not a socialist - he's not concerned with fairness or equality.
He's only concerned with lining the pockets of the rich.
He's a corporatist - a big-government capitalist.
 
Neitzluber said:
The reason he can't hear us is because he has been firing his gun too close to his ears. Now he's deaf.

Anyways, it is a horrible idea to trust mercenaries. They are only in it for the money. There is no honor, loyalty, or sense of duty. They are just paid murderers.

The fact that Obama has not ended the Blackwater contracts simply proves that he's not a socialist - he's not concerned with fairness or equality.
He's only concerned with lining the pockets of the rich.
He's a corporatist - a big-government capitalist.
Click to expand...

Please see this post:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ibes-iraq-after-17-died-3.html#post1058380498


P.S. Don't talk **** about Mercenaries. Some of the most honorable and loyal fighters throughout History were mercenaries.

For Example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangian#Varangian_Guard

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walloon_Guards[/ame]


[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Guard[/ame]
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom